It looks as if we shall not be able to meet—we are not
going to either Mainz or Paris and leave here
tomorrow.[2]
It is a, great pity, but we must accept the situation and
confine ourselves to conversing by post.

Firstly, I hasten to correct a remark in your first letter,
a correction I would ask you to convey also to the person
who told you of my “promise to meet”. That is not true.
I did not promise to meet, but said that we would officially
(i.e., on behalf of our
group[3]) get in touch with the
Union[4] when we
were abroad, if this appeared to be necessary. It was wrong of
G.[5] to forget about this condition, and to forget
besides to tell you that I spoke with him in a personal
capacity and, consequently, could not have promised
anything definite in anticipation of our group’s decision. When
we heard out the other side
here[6] and learned about the
congress and the split, we saw that there was now no need
for an official contact. That’s all. Consequently, the Union
has no right whatever to “lay claim” to me, whereas I claim
that G. told certain other persons of our conversation,
although he had formally promised me that, prior to our
group making contact with the Union, he would inform no
one except the arrested person. Since you have informed me
of his claim, I hope you will not refuse, being in Paris, to
inform him likewise of this claim of mine. If “the rumour
is heavy on the
ground”,[7] it is G. who is to blame for
it.[1]

Now passing to the heart of the matter. Amalgamation
is impossible. So is federation, if the word is understood in
its real sense, i.e., a certain agreement, a treaty, mutual
obligations, etc. “The endeavour to afford each other as much
help as possible”—is, I think, not bound up with federation,
but is possible also without it, and is possible in general,
although I do not know whether it is easily practicable. If the
Union sincerely desired this, it would hardly have started with
ultimatums and the threat of a boycott (that was precisely
the meaning of the words used by the person who delivered
your letter); that cannot serve to improve relations.

We are an independent literary group. We want to remain
independent. We do not consider it possible to carry on
without such forces as Plekhanov and the Emancipation
of Labour group, but no one is entitled to conclude from this
that we shall forego even a particle of our independence.
That is all we can say at the moment to people who want
to know above all what our attitude is to the Emancipation
of Labour group. To anyone who is not satisfied with this,
we have nothing to say except: judge us by our deeds if you
do not believe our words. If, however, it is a question not
of the present moment, but of the more or less near future,
then, of course, we shall not refuse to impart to people
with whom we shall have close relations more detailed
information on the form of the relations between us and the
Emancipation of Labour group.

You will ask: what kind of relations will you have with
the Union? For the time being none, because it is our
unalterable decision to remain an independent group and enjoy
the closest co-operation of the Emancipation of Labour
group. This decision, however, is distrusted by the Union,
which fears that we will not be capable of sustaining our
complete independence, that we will fall into an
“impossible” (your expression) polemical tone. If our activity
dispels this distrust on the part of the Union, good relations
can be established between us, otherwise they cannot. Voilà
tout. You write: “The Union is looking to you”; but
obviously we can only help the Union with writings, and it is no
less obvious that at the present time, when all our vital
juices must go to nourish our coming
offspring,[8] we cannot
afford to feed other people’s children.

You write that 1) there are no disagreements in principle,
and that 2) the Union is ready to prove in practice its
determination to fight the “Economic trend”. We are certain
that on both these points you are mistaken. Our conviction
is based on such writings as the postscript to the
Anti-Credo,[9]
the reply to
Vademecum,[10]No. 6 of Rabocheye
Dyelo,[11] the
preface to the pamphlet A Turning Point in the Jewish
Labour Movement, and others. We intend to come out in
writing with a refutation of the opinion that there are no
disagreements in principle (so that we shall have some
relations with the Union: relations between parties engaged
in a polemic).

Now for the last and main point: are we right or not in
regarding you as having had “a very, very sharp change
of views”? Let us recall how things stood in Russia: you
knew that we wanted to found an independent literary
enterprise, you knew that we were for Plekhanov.
Consequently, you knew everything, and not only did not refuse to
participate, but, on the contrary, yourself used such an
expression as “our” enterprise (do you remember our last talk
in your flat en troits?), thus giving us grounds for expecting
the closest participation from you. Now, however, it turns
out that you are silent on the question of your participation,
that you set us the “task” of “settling the conflict abroad at
all costs”, that is to say, a task which we have not undertaken
and are not undertaking—without, of course, giving up
the hope that our foundation of an independent enterprise
with the co-operation of the Emancipation of Labour group
may create a basis for settling the conflict. Now, apparently,
you doubt the expediency of our group establishing an
independent enterprise, for you write that the existence of
two organisations with “each leaving the other to act as the
spirit moves it” will be bad for the cause. It seems
indubitable to us that your views have undergone a sharp change.
We have now set before you with complete frankness how
matters stand with us, and we should be very glad if our
exchange of views on the question of “impending tasks”
were not limited to this.

Notes

[1]Secondly, yet another little departure: I heard out both G.,
whom I met in the course of several days, and the other side. You,
on the other hand, heard out only the Unionists; but no more or less
influential and authoritative representatives of the other side. Hence
it seems to me that it is you, if anybody, who has violated the rule
of “audiatur et altera pars”
“(hear the other side as well”—Ed.)—Lenin

[2]On September 6 Lenin left Nuremberg for Munich, which was chosen as
the residence for the members of the editorial board of the all-Russia
illegal Marxist newspaper Iskra. p. 48

[3]This refers to the group consisting of V. I. Lenin, Y. O. Martov and
A. N. Potresov formed on Lenin’s initiative upon his return from
exile at the beginning of 1900 with the object of setting up abroad an
all-Russia illegal Marxist newspaper. p. 48

[5]Here and elsewhere the reference is to Lenin’s talks with
Ts. Kopolson (“Grishin”), a member of the Union of Russian
Social-Democrats Abroad. p. 48

[6]This refers to the Emancipation of Labour group, the first Russian
Marxist group, founded by Plekhanov in Geneva in 1883. Other members
of the group were P. B. Axelrod, L. G. Deutsch, V. I. Zasulich and
V. N. Ignatov. The E. L. group did a great deal to disseminate Marxism
in Russia. It translated into Russian, published abroad and
distributed in Russia the works of the founders of Marxism:
Manifesto of the Communist Party by Marx and Engels;
Wage-Labour and Capitalism by Marx; Socialism: Utopian
and Scientific by Engels and other works. Plekhanov and his group
dealt a severe blow to Narodism. The two drafts of a programme for
Russian Social-Democrats written by Plekhanov in 1883 and 1885 and
published by the E. L. group were an important step towards preparing
the ground for and establishing a Social-Democratic Party in
Russia. An important part in spreading Marxist views in Russia was
played by Plekhanov’s essays: Socialism and the Political
Struggle (1883), Our Differences (1885) and The
Development of the Monist View of History (1895). The
E. L. group, however, committed serious errors; they clung to remnants
of the Narodnik views, underestimated the revolutionary capacity of
the peasantry and overestimated the role of the liberal
bourgeoisie. These errors were the embryo of the future Menshevik
views held by Plekhanov and other members of the group.

Lenin pointed out that the E. L. group “only laid the
theoretical foundations for the Social-Democratic movement and took
the first step towards the working-class movement” (see Vol. 20,
P. 278 of this edition).

At the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. in August 1903 the
E. L. group announced that it had ceased its activities as a
group. p. 48

[7]The rumour refers to the forthcoming publication of the newspaper
Iskra.

Iskra (The Spark) was the first all-Russia illegal Marxist
newspaper; it was founded by Lenin in 1900 and played an important
role in building the Marxist revolutionary party of the working class
in Russia.

As it was impossible to publish a revolutionary newspaper in Russia on account
of police persecution, Lenin, while still in exile in Siberia, evolved a
detailed plan for its publication abroad. When his exile ended (in January 1900)
Lenin immediately set about putting his plan into effect.

The first issue of Lenin’s Iskra was published in Leipzig in
December 1900; later issues were published in Munich; from July 1902 the paper
was published in London, and from the spring of 1903 in Geneva. Considerable
help in getting the newspaper going (the organization of secret
printing-presses, the acquisition of Russian type, etc.) was rendered by the
German Social-Democrats Clara Zetkin, Adolf Braun and others, as well as by
Julian Marchlewski, a Polish revolutionary residing at Munich at the time, and
by Harry Quelch, one of the leaders of the English Social-Democratic Federation.

The editorial board of Iskra consisted of V. I. Lenin, G. V. Plekhanov,
Y. O. Martov, P. B. Axelrod, A. N. Potresov and V. 1. Zasulich. The first
secretary of the board was I. G. Smidovich-Leman; in the spring of 1901 this
post was taken over by N. K. Krupskaya, who also conducted the correspondence
between Iskra and the Social-Democratic organisations in Russia. Lenin
was virtually Editor-in-Chief and the leading figure in Iskra, in which
he published his articles on all fundamental issues of Party organisation and
the class struggle of the proletariat in Russia, and dealt with the most
important international events.

Iskra became the centre for the unification of Party forces, for the
gathering and training of Party cadres. R.S.D.L.P. groups and committees of a
Leninist Iskra trend were set up in a number of Russian cities
(St. Petersburg, Moscow, Samara and others). Iskrist organisations sprang up and
worked under the direct leadership of Lenin’s disciples and associates
N. E. Bauman, I. V. Babushkin, S. I. Gusev, M. I. Kalinin, P. A. Krasikov,
G. M. Krzhizhanovsky, P. V. Lengnik, P. N. Lepeshinsky, I. I. Radchenko, and
others.

On the initiative and with the direct participation of Lenin the Iskra
editorial board drew up a draft programme of the Party (published in
Iskra No. 21), and prepared the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P.,
which was held in July-August 1903. By the time the Congress was convened most
of the local Social-Democratic organisations in Russia had adopted the
Iskra position, approved its tactics, programme and plan of
organisation, and recognised the newspaper as their leading organ. A special
resolution of the Congress noted Iskra’s exceptional role in the
struggle to build the Party and adopted the newspaper as the Central Organ of
the R.S.D.L.P. The Second Congress approved an editorial board consisting of
Lenin, Plekhanov and Martov. Despite the Congress decision Martov refused to
participate, and issues Nos. 46-51 of Iskra were edited by Lenin and
Plekhanov. Later Plekhanov adopted a Menshevik stand and demanded that all the
old Menshevik editors be included in the editorial board of Iskra,
although they had been rejected by the Congress. Lenin could
not agree to this, and on October 19 (November 1), 1903, he resigned from the
Iskra editorial board. He was co-opted to the Central Committee, from
where he conducted a struggle against the Menshevik opportunists. Issue 52 was
edited by Plekhanov alone. On November 13 (26), 1903, Plekhanov, on his own
initiative and in defiance of the will of the Congress, co-opted all the old
Menshevik editors to the editorial board. Beginning with issue 52 the Mensheviks
turned Iskra into their own organ. p. 48

[9]In August 1899, upon receiving from A. I. Ulyanova-Yelizarova in St. Petersburg
the manifesto of the Economists which she called “the Credo of the
‘young’ group”, Lenin wrote his Anti-Credo—“A Protest
by Russian Social-Democrats” (see Vol. 4, pp. 167-82 of this edition). The
author of the Credowas Y. D. Kuskova, then a member of the Union of
Russian Social-Democrats Abroad. The manifesto of the Economists was not
intended for the press, and, as Lenin pointed out, was published “without
the consent and perhaps even against the will of its authors”, because the
Economists feared public criticism of their opportunist views (see Vol. 5,
p. 364 of this edition). p. 50

[10]Vademecum for the Editors of Rabocheye Dyelo. A Collection of Material
Published by the Emancipation of Labour Group, with a Preface by G. V.
Plekhanov (Geneva, February 1900) was in the ranks of the R.S.D.L.P.,
chiefly against Economism of the Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad and of
its organ the journal Rabocheye Dyelo. p. 50

[11]Rabocheye Dyelo (Workers’ Cause)—a journal, organ of the
Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad, published in Geneva from April 1899 to
February 1902. Twelve numbers (nine books) were issued in all. The editorial
board of Rabocheye Dyelo was the centre of the Economists
abroad. Rabocheye Dyelo supported Bernstein’s slogan of
“freedom of criticism” of Marxism, and took an opportunist stand on
questions of the tactics and organisational tasks of the Russian
Social-Democrats. Its supporters propagated opportunist ideas making the
proletariat’s political struggle subservient to the economic struggle; they
exalted spontaneity in the working-class movement and denied the leading role of
the Party. V. P. Ivanshin, one of the journal’s editors, also took part in
editing Rabochaya Mysl, organ of the outspoken Economists, which
Rabocheye Dyelo supported. At the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. the
Rabocheya Dyelo group represented the extreme Right, opportunist wing
of the Party. p. 50